Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions

Genealogy of Westcott & Hort Textual Errors

Brooke Foss Westcott Fenton John Anthony Hort Cambridge, England Cambridge, England (1825--1901) (1828--1892) \ / \ / Benjamin B. Warfield Princeton Theological Seminary / Prof. (1887-1921) / \ / \ J. Gresham Machen A. T. Robertson Lewis Sperry Chafer Charles Brokenshire Princeton Theol. Sem. South.Bap.Theol. Dallas Theol. Sem. Bob Jones Univ. (BJU Prof. (1906-29) Prof. (1888-1934) ounder & Prof. (1924-52) Dean/Prof. (1943-54) | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 Genealogy of Westcott & Hort Textual Errors

Westminster Theol.Sem | Marshall Neal BJU Founder & Prof. (1929-37) | Prof. (1945-94) | | | | \ | | | | \ Conservative Southern Bapt. Evangelical & Bible Stewart Custer BJU Presbyterians Convention & Churches & / Prof. (1960-- & Bible Churches ManyBaptists Seminaries / / Independent Baptist Seminaries / | \ Central Baptist Detroit Baptist Calvary Theol. Sem. Mnpls., MN Allen Park, MI Sem. Lansdale, PA Gordon Lovik David Doran G. Lovik (BJU Grad) (BJU Grad) (BJU Grad)

2 Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions

zBy Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D.

3 My Answer to . . . FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN A LAYMAN’S GUIDE TO HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE

Their Plea For Neutrality! Agnosticism on the Bible

A Book Promoted by Bob Jones University Leaders 4 Why the Mind of Man? Chronology of Events

z Pensacola Christian College Video #3 z BJU’s Thurman Wisdom’s Response z 7-School Video Response (9 men) z My Distortions on Bible Versions Book z Pensacola Christian College Video #4 z From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man z Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions

5 The Book Launch – July 4, 1999 Key Facts Presented z Held in BJU Faculty Member’s Church z Entire Meeting was Tape Recorded z All 7 Copyright Holders + 1 Were Present z All 8 Authors Signed 460 Books z 1,300 More Books Sold at World C.of F. z The Deception about the Publisher z The Tie-in with Dr. Ian Paisley (N.Ireland) z Dr. Paisley Would Not Tell His Opinion

6 The Book Launch – July 4, 1999 Key Facts Presented z Dr. Williams’ Account of Book’s Origin z Committee Away from an Organization z Resolution Charged no Scripture or Fact z Committee Uses KJB, NASV, NIV, NKJV z Dr. Downey Left PCC & Dothan Views z Greek “Variants”–Less than a Page z Greek “Variants”–No Doctrine Affected

7 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

You be the Judge

The Book mentions “D. A. Waite” and eight others (pp. 7-8)

8 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

"It contains a proper spirit. Too often, those who write on this subject of manuscripts and translations have been acrimonious in their tone. There have been vilification of character, personal attacks, and a generally unchristian spirit. The authors of this work have presented their information objectively and without attacks on the character of their opponents." [The

Mind of Man, p. ix] 9 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote of us: z “acrimonious . . . in tone”(p. ix) z “vilification of character”(p. ix) z “personal attacks” (p. ix) z “unchristian spirit” (p. ix) z “attacks on the character of their opponents” (p. ix)

10 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. Mark Minnick wrote of us: z “unlearned . . . leaders” (p. xii) z “unscrupulous leaders” (p. xii) z “driving an unnecessary wedge” (p. xii) z “ungracious . . . tone” (p. xii) z “divisive tone” (p. xii) z “character assassination” (p. xii)

11 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: z Creating “unnecessary confusion and division” (p. 2) z “doing more damage to the cause of Christ among Fundamentalists than any of the other controversies” (p. 2) z “lack of theological understanding” (p. 4) z “lack of . . . biblical language training” (p. 4) z “not qualified to speak to the issues” (p. 4) z “disseminators of mis-information” (p. 4) 12 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: z “made Bible versions a divisive issue”(p.5) z “arrogant and abrasive” (p. 6) z “parade of misinformers” (p. 7) z “unqualified opponents” (p. 7) z “misinformed and misininforming” (p. 7) z “misinformation and heresy” (p. 7)

13 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: (from Acts 20:17-38) z “grievous wolves” (p. 7) z “not sparing the flock” (p.7) z “speaking perverse things” p. 7) z “to twist” (p. 7) z “to pervert” (p. 7) z “to distort” (p. 7) z “people who would deceive and exploit

the believers by their heresies” (p. 7)14 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: (from 2 Peter 2:1-3) z “people who . . . deceive” (p.7) z “exploiting the believers by their heresies” (p. 7) z “false prophets” (p. 7) z “false teachers” (p. 7) z “denying the Lord that bought them” (p. 7) z “bring on themselves swift destruction” (p. 7) z “their pernicious ways” (p. 7) z “their damnation slumbereth not” (p. 7) 15 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”?

Dr. Mark Minnick wrote of us: z regarding Westcott and Hort: “some have vilified these men’s intentions” (p. 85) z “dividing the Lord’s people” (p. 97) z “drumbeating is distracting” (p. 98) z “drumbeating . . . is unscripturally

divisive” (p. 98) 16 MIS-INFORMATION #2

No “Organization” Ties?

17 Dr. J. B. Williams, the general editor of The Mind of Man, said to Dr. Bob Jones III in a private meeting:

y“We want a committee that’s not affiliated with any kind of organization at all–completely away from all of it.” [tape transcript of 7/4/99]

What follows is a tenfold connection with the organization known as Bob Jones University. 18 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties?

10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (summary) z 1. BJU Origin of The Mind of Man z 2. BJU Selection of Copyright Holders z 3. Six BJU Copyright holders z 4. Six BJU Endorsers of the Book z 5. 9 BJU Authors of The Mind of Man z 6. Three BJU Academicians z 7. BJU and the Publishers z 8. The BJU Release of the book z 9. BJU and the Sale of the Book 19 z 10. Book’s Approval by BJU President MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties?

10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 1. BJU Origin of The Mind of Man z 2. BJU Selection of Copyright Holders z 3. Six BJU Copyright holders • BJU Choices by Dr. J. B. Williams (BJU Board of Trustees) x Dr. Randolph Shaylor (BJU grad). x Dr. Mark Minnick (BJU grad. & BJU Bible Faculty) x Rev. John Hutcheson (BJU grad. & BJU Cooperating Board) • BJU Choices by Dr. Bob Jones III (BJU President) x Dr. J. Drew Conley (BJU grad.) x Dr. Mark R. Simmons (BJU grad.) • Choice by the Six BJU Loyalists x Dr. Paul W. Downey (PCC grad. & Bethany Seminary) 20 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties?

10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 4. Six BJU Endorsers of the Book • Dr. Rod Bell (BJU grad. & BJU Executive Committee) • Dr. David C. Innes (BJU grad.) • Dr. Les Ollila (BJU grad.) • Dr. Ernest D. Pickering (BJU grad.) • Dr. Bob Taylor (BJU grad.)

• Dr. John Vaughn. (BJU grad.) 21 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties?

10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 5. 9 BJU Authors of The Mind of Man • Dr. James B. Williams (BJU Board of Trustees & General Editor) • Rev. John K. Hutcheson Sr., (BJU grad. & Cooperating Board) • Dr. Mark Minnick, (BJU grad. & BJU Bible faculty) • Dr. Randolph Shaylor, (BJU grad. & Managing Editor) • Dr. Ernest Pickering, (BJU grad.) • Dr. J. Drew Conley, (BJU grad.) • Dr. Mark E. Simmons, BJU graduate. • Dr. Keith E. Gephart, BJU graduate. • Dr. John C. Mincy, BJU graduate. 22 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties?

10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 6. Three BJU Academicians • Dr. David Beale, (BJU grad. & on BJU faculty) • Dr. Sam Horn, (BJU grad.) • Dr. Ernest Pickering, (BJU grad.) z 7. BJU and the Publishers z 8. The BJU Release of the book z 9. BJU and the Sale of the Book 23 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties?

10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 10. Book’s Approval by BJU – President

“Dr. Bob held up the book and called it ‘the most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade,

no, in this century.’. . .” 24 MIS-INFORMATION #3

Northern Ireland Publisher? (source--July 4, 1999, tape)

25 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher? z Mind of Man states Ambassador- Emerald International (Greenville, South Carolina and Belfast, N. Ireland). z The Greenville, SC, address is too small to print anything. z The Belfast, Northern Ireland Publisher (Mr. Lowery) on 9/1/99 knew nothing about the book published before

7/1/99–They didn’t publish it! 26 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher?

Some Pertinent Questions z On what press was The Mind of Man printed? z Was it the Bob Jones University Press? z In what city and state was The Mind of Man printed? z Was it in Greenville, South Carolina? or elsewhere? z What individual(s) funded this book? z Any connection with BJU? 27 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher? Some Pertinent Questions z What organization, if any, funded this book? z Did this organization, if any, have any BJU connection? z Why did Dr. Mark Minnick (7/4/99) talk so much about the Ambassador Publications in Belfast, Northern Ireland, implying that The Mind of Man was published by them? What motivated him on this? 28 MIS-INFORMATION #4

Dr. Paisley-Approved?

29 MIS-INFORMATION #4 Dr. Paisley Approved? z Dr. Paisley’s name was mentioned as having his books (16) printed by same Belfast publisher. z They tried to tie in Dr. Paisley with The Mind of Man. z A friend in Northern Ireland wrote Dr. Paisley twice asking his view of the book. z Dr. Paisley made no reply! z Does he sanction this book? 30 MIS-INFORMATION #5

From the MIND of God? Only “Message” Inspiration?

31 This book’s sub-title is “A LAYMAN’S GUIDE TO HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE.” This is MIS-INFORMATION as to “how we got our Bible.” It implies that it came only from God’s “MIND” to man’s “MIND” rather than from God’s “WORDS” to man’s “WORDS.” Doing this sets the stage for both “message” inspiration & preservation ONLY.

32 MIS-INFORMATION #6 “Lack of Theological Understanding”? (p. 4) z 4 years at Dallas Seminary–high honors–all “A’s”–1st in Th.M. class (1948-52) z 3 more years at Dallas–with honors–all “A’s” but one “B”–for Th.D. (1952-55) z Taught theology by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dr. John F. Walvoord and other leaders at the “old” Dallas Seminary.

33 MIS-INFORMATION #7 “Lack of Biblical Language Training”? (p. 4) z Greek – Semester hrs. –------66 Classical at U. Mich. (‘45-’48) N.T. at Dallas Seminary(‘48-’55) z Hebrew – Semester hrs. ------– 25 z Dallas Seminary(‘48-’55) Total Bible Language Semester hrs. – *91* z Other Foreign Languages – 27 Latin (8); French (8); Spanish (11) Total Foreign Language Semester hours. –------*118* 34 MIS-INFORMATION #8 “Not Qualified to Speak to the Issues? (p. 4) z “Theological Understanding” z “Biblical Language Training” z Why can’t informed Pastors or informed lay people be “qualified to speak to the issues”? z Are we going to limit the “qualified” ones to the popes, priests, professors or even pastors? z This is a great danger! 35 MIS-INFORMATION #9 Pastors and laymen receiving “MISINFORMATION”? (p. 4) Dr. J. B. Williams said: Ø “This MIS-INFORMATION in the hands of unsuspecting and often immature pastors and laymen has resulted in confusion, and in some instances, heresy.” (p. 4) What Dr. Williams calls “MIS-INFORMA- TION” is really truth. It causes “confusion” only to the false W/H followers.36 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Dr. J. B. Williams said (of apostates Westcott and Hort): Ø “Both these men are now with the Lord and cannot defend themselves against half-truths that have been made into lies.” (p. 4) These men were apostates and unbelievers. They’re in conscious suffering now and are destined for the lake of fire! 37 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Westcott wrote on August 11, 1847, "I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." [Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, by Arthur Westcott, his son, vol. I, p. 32] 38 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4)

Westcott wrote to Archbishop of Canterbury on March 4,1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three Chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did." [Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, by Arthur Westcott, vol. I, p. 69] 39 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) "They [English and Catholic theologians] held uncompromisingly to the opinion demanded by the Apostles’ Creed, and affirmed the Resurrection of the Flesh. . . . Bishop Westcott is really the author of the great change. . . . He entirely abandoned belief in the resurrection of the flesh . . .”[Kirsopp Lake, Immortality and the Modern Mind, pp. 38-40] 40 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Westcott wrote concerning John 10:29: "The thought which is concrete in v. 28 is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of UNIVERSAL FATHER- HOOD.” [B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 159.] Is this now “Fundamentalism”? 41 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Westcott wrote this about John 1:29, “the Lamb of God”: “The parallel passage in the Epistle shews that the REDEMPTIVE EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S WORK is to be found IN HIS WHOLE LIFE (He was manifested) crowned by His Death.” [B. F. Westcott, The Gospel

According to St. John, p. 20] 42 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) John 1:29b: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18-19). 43 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Dr. Fuller quoted Benjamin Wilkinson about Westcott and Hort: “Both rejected the atonement of the substitution of Christ for the sinner, or vicarious atonement; both denied that the death of Christ counted for anything as an atoning factor. They emphasized atonement through Incarnation.” (Dr. David O. Fuller, Which Bible, p. 192). 44 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Hort wrote to Ellerton 7/9/1848: "I am inclined to think that NO SUCH STATE AS ‘EDEN’ (I mean the popular notion) EVER EXISTED, AND THAT ADAM'S FALL IN NO DEGREE DIFFERS FROM THE FALL OF EACH OF HIS DESCENDANTS AS COLE- RIDGE JUSTLY ARGUES." [Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, Vol. I, p. 45 78] MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Writing to Mr. H. Brinton, January, 1886, Hort said: “But the early chapters of Genesis remain a divinely appointed PAR- ABLE or apologue setting forth important practical truths on sub- jects which, AS MATTER OF HISTORY, lie OUT SIDE our present ken." [Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, Vol. II, p. 329] 46 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Hort said to Westcott: “I entirely agree–correcting one word–with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that ‘the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself’ is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an IMMORAL AND MATERIAL COUNTERFEIT.” “. . . Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal HERESY.’”

(Dr. David Otis Fuller, Which Bible, p. 192). 47(op. cit., pp. 8-9). MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Hort did not think “heaven” was a real place–only figurative: “(1 Peter 1:5) (reserved in heaven) It is hardly necessary to say that this WHOLE LOCAL LANGUAGE IS FIGURATIVE ONLY: . . .” (Hort–Commentary on 1 Peter, op. cit., p. 37).

More Hortian HERESY. 48 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) “(1 Peter 1:7) (at the revelation of Jesus Christ) There is nothing in either this passage or others on the same subject, apart from the figurative language of Thess., to show that the REVELATION here spoken of is to be LIMITED TO a sudden preternatural theophany. It may be a long and varying process, though ending in a climax.” (Hort-1 Peter, pp. 44- 45). 49 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Hort denied the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ! “(1 Peter 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our LORD Jesus Christ) In all this early usage probably represents NOT Adon, but the nearly equivalent Aramaic Mar, sometimes applied to TEACHERS BY DISCIPLES . . .” (Hort-1 Peter, op. cit., p. 31). 50 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) “(1 Peter 1:2) In the N.T. the BLOOD OF CHRIST is associated with various images which need to be clearly distinguished. There is here NO DIRECT REFERENCE to the idea of PURCHASE OR RANSOM, as in vv. 18., 19 . . . or to the ideal of SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT, as in several other books of the N.T.” (Hort-1 Peter, op. cit., p. 23). 51 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) “(1 Peter 1:19) (But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot) In this allusion to the BLOOD OF AN UNBLEMISHED AND UNSPOTTED LAMB, what had St Peter in mind? Chiefly, I think, and perhaps SOLELY the paschal lamb.” (Hort-1 Peter, op. cit., p. 77). Hort doubts the Blood of Christ! 52 MIS-INFORMATION #10 Westcott & Hort “with the Lord”? (p. 4) Hort thinks “Blood” figurative! – 1 Peter 1:19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” “(1 Peter 1:19) The true lesson is that the LANGUAGE which speaks of a RANSOM IS BUT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE; . . .” (Hort-1 Peter, op. cit., p. 80). 53 MIS-INFORMATION #11 Textus Receptus based on Erasmus? (pp. 4-5) Dr. James B. Williams wrote: “The same reasoning would apply to the Textus Receptus, which is based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus..” (p. 4) This is FALSE! Dean Burgon agreed with Bishop Ellicott when he wrote: 54 MIS-INFORMATION #11 Textus Receptus based on Erasmus? (pp. 4-5)

“The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus . . . That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity.55 MIS-INFORMATION #11 Textus Receptus based on Erasmus? (pp. 4-5) The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them.” [Bishop Ellicott’s Pamphlet, pp. 11, 12.] [Dean Burgon commented]: “By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, ‘at least,’ 1550 years old.” [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 390] 56 MIS-INFORMATION #12 KJB Based on Erasmus? (pp.4-5) Dr. James B. Williams wrote: “Erasmus, whose Greek text is said to be the basis of the KJV translation, was a Roman Catholic priest who never left the Roman Church." This is FALSE! Beza’s 5th edition, 1598, (82 years after the 1516 Erasmus text) was the Greek basis for the KJB! When will this LIE stop being told? 57 MIS-INFORMATION #13 “Another Disseminator of MIS-INFORMATION”? (p.6) Dr. James D. Williams wrote: "Another disseminator of MIS- INFORMATION from Wilkinson's teaching was the Baptist pastor David Otis Fuller, who wrote Which Bible?" Dr. Fuller was giving TRUE INFORMATION in his three books he edited: (1) Which Bible? (2) True or

False? (3) Counterfeit or Genuine? 58 MIS-INFORMATION #14 A “parade of MIS- INFORMERS” & “unqualified proponents”? (p.7) Dr. James D. Williams wrote: "There are others who have joined in this parade of MIS-INFORMERS including D. A. Waite, E. L. Bynum, Jack Chick, and Walter Beebe. The list increases with time as more unqualified proponents of the KJV Only view join in the confusion.” “Unqualified” in whose opinion? 59 MIS-INFORMATION #6 “Lack of Theological Understanding”? (p. 4) z4 years at Dallas Seminary–high honors–all “A’s”–1st in Th.M. class (1948-52) z3 more years at Dallas–with honors–all “A’s” but one “B”–for Th.D. (1952-55) zTaught theology by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dr. John F. Walvoord and other leaders at the “old” Dallas Seminary.

60 MIS-INFORMATION #7 “Lack of Biblical Language Training”? (p. 4) zGreek – Semester hrs. –------66 Classical at U. Mich. (‘45-’48) N.T. at Dallas Seminary(‘48-’55) zHebrew – Semester hrs. ------–-- 25 z Dallas Seminary(‘48-’55) Total Bible Language Semester hrs. – *91* z Other Foreign Languages – 27 Latin (8); French (8); Spanish (11) Total Foreign Language Semester hours. –------*118*61 MIS-INFORMATION #15 2 Peter 2:1-3 & Acts 20:17- Examples of “MIS- INFORMERS”? (p. 7) Dr. James D. Williams wrote: “The principles and examples of these passages illustrate what the producers of MIS-INFORMATION are doing to Christendom.” Words from 2 Peter 2:1-3: Words from Acts 20:17-38: 62 MIS-INFORMATION #15 2 Peter 2:1-3 & Acts 20:17- Examples of “MIS-INFORMERS”? (p. 7) Words from 2 Peter 2:1-3: (1) “people who . . . deceive” (2) “exploiting the believers by their heresies” (3) “false prophets” (4) “false teachers” (5) “denying the Lord that bought them” (6) “bring on themselves swift destruction” (7) “their pernicious ways” (8) “their damnation slumbereth not.” 63 MIS-INFORMATION #15 2 Peter 2:1-3 & Acts 20:17- Examples of “MIS- INFORMERS”? (p. 7) Words from Acts 20:17-38: (1) “grievous wolves” (2) “not sparing the flock” (3) “speaking perverse things” (4) “to twist” (5) “to pervert” (6) “to distort” (7) “people who would deceive and exploit the believers by their heresies” This is gross error! Dr. Williams is applying these two passages to fellow Fundamentalists. They actually apply to unbelieving modernists and religious apostates. 64 MIS-INFORMATION #16 Is it “extreme” to use only the King James Bible? (p. 8) The Committee had an agenda of 6 points as their “purpose, goals, and intent.” Point #2 was: “To expose the two extreme positions of the King James controversy: KJV Onlyism and KJV Discreditism.” Their colors came out clearly here, declaring that it was an “extreme” position to use only the KJB. Why not, since it’s the best English that there is?65 MIS-INFORMATION #17 Do Textus Receptus people have “honesty” & “sincerity? (p.9) The Committee agreed on 6 things. #1 was as follows: “The committee therefore agrees that the authors of these articles should acknowledge the sincerity and honesty of those who hold to either the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, or Critical Text even though they may arrive at different conclusions.” How about TR people??

This is neutrality/agnosticism! 66 MIS-INFORMATION #18 Is “truth” all that is involved in “preservation”? (p.17) Dr. Shaylor wrote: “The Preservation of Revelation•God has made His revelation available to others than those to whom it was immediately given by preserving His TRUTH in written form. He guaranteed the veracity of these writings by using the special method of imparting His TRUTH that we know as inspiration.”

“TRUTH” or WORDS? 67 MIS-INFORMATION #19 Did God “Inspire” the “Writers” or the WORDS? (p. 17) Dr. Shaylor wrote: “The Nature of Inspiration–Until the modern era, Christians viewed inspiration as involving the words used by the INSPIRED WRITERS. Modern rejection . .” This is MIS-INFORMATION and serious HERESY! “Inspiration” means “God- breathed.” God breathed out the WORDS, not the “WRITERS.” 68 MIS-INFORMATION #20 Only “message” found in translations, not the “WORDS” (p. 27) Dr. Shaylor wrote: “Even though there is great variation in the quality of translations, we do have trustworthy translations that convey the MESSAGE of the inspired, inerrant Word of God. . . .With this understanding, the reader, when using a tested, accurate, reliable translation, can rest in the confidence that he has God's inspired MESSAGE.” [no words?] 69 MIS-INFORMATION #21 “Message,” “Word,” but not WORDS of God? (p. 28) Dr. Shaylor wrote: “No matter what language we speak, when we hold in our hands a faithful, accurate, reliable translation, we need not doubt that we have God's MESSAGE. We have the WORD of God.” Notice, “MESSAGE” is equated to the “WORD” of God, but not the WORDS of

God. 70 MIS-INFORMATION #22 Did Mark’s Gospel end with 16:8 or 16:20 as in the KJB? (p. 64) Dr. Minnick wrote: “. . . to the issue of what was the original ending to Mark's Gospel. Does it conclude with (1) 16:8, or (2) as in our King James Version or (3) as in our King James Version but with two additional sentences . . . ?” Dr. Minnick is uncertain of Mark 16:9-20. Read & believe Burgon’s Last 12 VV. of Mark! 71 THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK (Mark 16:9-20)

SUMMARIZED (In Burgon’s Day): a. AGAINST Mark 16:9-20: (1) Codex “B” (Vatican) [p. 70] (2) Codex “Aleph” (Sinai) [p. 70] b. FOR Mark 16:9-20: (1) 18 Uncials [p. 71] (2) c. 600 Cursive Copies [p. 71] (3) Every known Uncial or Cursive in existence! [p. 71] (4) Every known Lectionary of the

East! [p. 210] 72 10 EARLY BIBLE VERSIONS SUPPORTING THE LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK (Mark 16:9-20) by Dean John William Burgon (BFT #1139) (350 Pages) DATE EARLY BIBLE VERSION 1. 100-199 A.D.PESHITO SYRIAC 2. 100-199 A.B.VETUS ITALA (OLD LATIN) 3. 200-299 A.D.CURETONIAN SYRIAC 4. 200-299 A.D.THEBAIC (SAHIDIC) EGYPTIAN 5. 300-399 A.D.MEMPHITIC (COPTIC) EGYPTIAN 6. 350 A.D. GOTHIC OF ULPHILAS 7. 382 A.D. LATIN VULGATE 8. 400-499 A.D. PHILOXENIAN SYRIAC 9. 300-699(?) A.D. ETHIOPIC 10. 500-599(?) A.D. GEORGIAN 73 19 EARLY CHURCH FATHERS SUPPORTING THE LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK (Mark 16:9-20)

According to THE LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK (pages 19-31) by Dean John William Burgon (BFT #1139) (350 Pages)

DATE CHURCH FATHER PLACE 1. 100 A.D. Papias (Mark 16:18) 2. 151 A.D. Justin Martyr (Mark 16:20) 3. 180 A.D. Irenaeus (Mark 16:19) Lyons 4. 200 A.D. Hippolytus (Mark 16:17-18) Portus (near Rome) 5. 256 A.D. Vincentius (Mark 16:17-18) Africa

74 19 EARLY CHURCH FATHERS SUPPORTING THE LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK (Mark 16:9-20)

DATE CHURCH FATHER PLACE 6. 250 A.D. Acta Pilati (Mark 16:15-18) 7. 200's-300's Apostolical Constitutions (Mark 16:16) 8. 325 A.D. Eusebius (Mark 16:9-20) 9. 325 A.D. Marinus (Mark 16:9-20) 10. 337 A.D. Aphraates The Persian (Mark 16:9-20) 11. 374-397 A.D. Ambrose (Mark 16:15-18, 20) Milan 12. 400 A.D. Chrysostom (Mark 16:9, 19-20) 13. 331-420 A. D. Jerome (Mark 16:9, 14) 14. 395-430 A.D. Augustine (Mark 16:12, 15-16) Hippo 15. 430 A.D. Nestorius (Mark 16:20) 16. 430 A.D. Cyril of Alexandria (Mark 16:20) Egypt 17. 425 A.D. Victor of Antioch (Mark 16:9-20) Syria 18. 500 A.D. Hesychius (Mark 16:19) Jerusalem 19. 500'S A.D. Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Mark 16:9-20) 75 MIS-INFORMATION #23 Is it all right for “textual critics” to be “unbelievers? (p. 71)

Dr. Minnick wrote: “Having said that, I must clarify that a textual critic may, in fact, be an unbeliever when it comes to the Bible's doctrinal truths. But when it comes to the Bible's text–to this question of the Bible's words–a textual critic is initially little more than a reporter.”

This is totally FALSE! 76 MIS-INFORMATION #23 Is it all right for “textual critics” to be “unbelievers? (p. 71) My teacher for four years, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the Founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote: “Such religious leaders may be highly educated . . . , but if they are not born again, their judgment in spiritual matters is worthless and misleading.” (Satan, p. 78) Dr. Chafer is correct! 77 MIS-INFORMATION #23 Is it all right for “textual critics” to be “unbelievers? (p. 71) Dean Burgon gave his requirements for those who wished to be “textual critics.” Notice the very FIRST qualification: “[1] divines of undoubted orthodoxy who for their [2] splendid scholarship and [3] proficiency in the best learning . . .” Dean Burgon was correct! 78 MIS-INFORMATION #23 Is it all right for “textual critics to be “unbelievers? (p. 71) Let me quote Westcott and Hort here: “Little is gained by speculating after the precise point at which such corruptions came in [he's talking about corruptions in the New Testament] they may be due to the original writer.” [Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 280] 79 FOUR QUESTIONS ? z1. Would you put a fox in charge of your chickens? z2. Would you put a thief in charge of a bank? z3. Would you put a pedophile in charge of your children? z4. Then WHY Would you put heretics in charge of your Bible?

80 MIS-INFORMATION #24 Was Erasmus the basis for the “TR” & the KJB? (p.76) Dr. Minnick wrote: “We can be thankful that Erasmus stuck to his convictions since it was one of the editions of his Greek New Testament that became the basis for what came to be known as the Textus Receptus. This Greek text is, in turn, the basis for our King James Version New Testament.” Both things are false! 81 MIS-INFORMATION #25 Are “B” and “Aleph” “corrupt” and “heretical”? (p. 84) “Just how different are the two most favored families (Majority and Alexandrian) from one another? “B” & “Aleph” differs with the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places (8,000 differences), 356 doctrinal passages involved 82 MIS-INFORMATION #25 Are “B” and “Aleph” “corrupt” and “heretical”? (p. 84) “Are they at such odds that one should be called ‘corrupt’ and the other ‘pure’? Or that one should even be dismissed as heretical?” The T.R. is “pure” & the B/Aleph texts are “corrupt” and “heretical.” 83 MIS-INFORMATION #25 Is there “very little difference” between W/H & TR texts? (p.85) Dr. Minnick wrote: “Westcott and Hort themselves believed that there is actually very little difference between the two major families of manuscripts. Hort wrote about this at some length in the Introduction to the Greek New Testament that he and Westcott produced.” This is exceedingly FALSE! 84 MIS-INFORMATION #25 Is there “very little difference” between W/H & TR texts? (p.85) Dr. Minnick used Hort’s guess: z1/8th doubted------12.5%--81 pp. z1/60th if minor------1.76%--11 pp. z1/1000th left------0.1%--0.6 page The Actual COUNT: z5,604 places------of differences z9,970 words------involved + or - z7% of the N.T.------45.9 pp. z2,886 words------omitted z356 places------of doctrine Hort and Dr. Minnick are wrong 85 MIS-INFORMATION #25 Is there “very little difference” between W/H & TR texts? (p.85) Sadly enough, Dr. Minnick agrees with apostate Westcott and heretic Hort on this matter: Dr. Minnick wrote: “Hort's estimate means that if all of the substantial variation between the families was grouped together in one place it would combine to occupy less than one page of my entire Testament.” [FALSE] 86 MIS-INFORMATION #26 Do the footnotes in the Greek NT give all the “variants”? (p.87) Dr. Minnick wrote: “. . . pastors have open access to the reports of textual criticism. Whether in the actual text or in its footnotes, every Greek New Testament I own informs me about the variants and tells me in its textual apparatus at the bottom of the pages what manuscripts include them.” [FALSE] 87 MIS-INFORMATION #27 Other “versions” the “very ‘Word’ of God”? (p. 94) Dr. Minnick wrote: “. . . we still have in our King James Version, or other accurate translations, the very Word of God. These agreements are exactly the position of the committee members, the other authors of this book's chapters, and the academicians who read them and added valuable insights.” “ ” “ ” [Notice-- Word, not Words ] 88 MIS-INFORMATION #27 Other “versions” the “very ‘Word’ of God”? (p. 94)

Version # Dynamic Equivalences KJB------0,000 NKJV------2,000 + NASV------4,000 + NIV------6,653 ++ VERSION N.T. GREEK KJB------Textus Receptus NKJV-Footnotes------W&H+Maj.Text NASV------Westcott/Hort NIV------Westcott/Hort

Word/message/concept/idea/thought–but NOT WORDS!89 MIS-INFORMATION #27 Other “versions” the “very ‘Word’ of God”? (p. 94) How can this be as to the very WORDS being the same when the N.T. Greek texts on which the versions are based are so different? The Actual COUNT: 5,604 places------of differences 9,970 words------involved + or - 7% of the N.T.------45.9 pp. 2,886 words------omitted 356 places------of doctrine 90 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick “. . . not one doctrine is affected. Not one truth is compromised. Every doctrine and truth of God's Word is taught in so many other places in synonymous or verbatim wording, that no variant obscures it.” This is FALSE! Dr. Jack Moorman has shown 356 doctrinal passages where the 91 W/H Greek is in error and TR is right. MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick This statement is FALSE! From Dr. Jack Moorman’s book, 356 Doctrinal Errors in the N.I.V. and Other Modern Bible Versions, there are 356 doctrinal passages where W/H is in error and TR is correct. I list 158 of these in Defending the KJB Chapter V. Here are some EXAMPLES of doctrinal error in the NASV and NIV and NKJV footnotes. 92 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick 1 Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Timothy 3:16) Greek: -ALEPH (No B in 1 Tim.) English:(-4) -NIV,-NASV,-NKJV-FN,-NB 93 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick Matthew 1:25: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25) Greek Manuscripts: -B/ALEPH English Versions: (-3) -NIV, -NASV, -NKJV-FN The Virgin Birth of Christ is not 100% certain, but is put in doubt. 94 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:11) Greek Manuscripts: -B/ALEPH English Versions: (-3) -NIV, [-NASV], -NKJV-FN Here the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ is completely missing. Why did He come?95 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick Luke 9:56: "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."(Luke 9:56) Greek Manuscripts: -B/ALEPH English Versions: (-3) -NIV, -NASV, -NKJV-FN Again, the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ is questioned. 96 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick John 7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come." Greek Manuscripts: -ALEPH English Versions: (-2)

-NASV, -NKJV-FN 97 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick Ephesians 3:9: “And to make all {men} see what {is} the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:” Greek Manuscripts: -B/ALEPH English: (-4) -NIV, -NASV, -NKJV-FN, -NB 98 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick John 6:47: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.” Greek Manuscripts: -B/ALEPH English Versions: (-3) -NIV, -NASV, -NKJV-FN By omitting “on me,” there is no need to be saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 99 MIS-INFORMATION #28 “Not one doctrine affected, . . . no variant obscures”? (p.96) Minnick Philippians 4:13: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” Greek Manuscripts: -B/ALEPH English: (-4) -NIV, -NASV, -NKJV-FN, -NB Again, the need for the Lord Jesus Christ is lessened here. Who gives strength? 100 MIS-INFORMATION #29 “B” and “Aleph”--“Neither is “heretical” on Christ? (p.97) Mark Minnick wrote: “Both manuscripts point me to Christ [he is talking about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the B and Aleph manuscripts]. Both preserve the very words in which the Holy Spirit testified to our Lord's deity. Neither is heretical.” 1 Timothy 3:16: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.” 101 MIS-INFORMATION #30 Textus Receptus–“Model T Ford” of the N.T.? (p. 106) John Ashbrook “The limitations of the Textus Receptus cannot be ignored . . . . To use an illustration, the Textus Receptus is the Model T Ford of the New Testament text. The Model T was a great triumph in the world of transportation, but it was only a first step into the present automotive world.” This is seriously FALSE! W/H is a “Model T

Ford.” Drop it!! 102 MIS-INFORMATION #30 Textus Receptus–“Model T Ford” of the N.T.? (p. 106) John Ashbrook “Those who accept the W-H [Westcott and Hort] Text . . . an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine. . . The plain fact is that Aleph/B/C/L/Delta/Psi really represent but one document and that one at variance with all others; . . .” [H. Hoskier, Codex B &

Its Allies, pp. 468-69] 103 MIS-INFORMATION #31 All Manuscripts rather than those of Erasmus? (p.106) John Ashbrook “I believe it is a better assumption to believe that God has preserved His Word in the whole set of manuscripts he has miraculously preserved for us, rather than in simply the few Erasmus was able to find in the library of Basle. We need to study all the available manuscripts carefully, as devout textual critics, . . .”

They have not done this!! 104 MIS-INFORMATION #32 Are KJB, NKJV, NASV and others “God’s Word”? (p.144) Dr. Mincy “Bible believers can read, for example, the King James Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New King James Version and believe with all confidence that they are reading God's Word. May the Lord continue to use the unparalleled beauty and balance of the King James Version and other good, literal translations . . .” (Mind of Man, p. 144) 105 MIS-INFORMATION #33 Finding the right Bible “contending for the faith”? (p.211) Gephart “Certainly, every true Fundamentalist recognizes the importance of ‘contending for the faith.’ Yet we must be certain that what we are contending for is truly ‘the faith’ and not merely some doctrinal peculiarity of our own.” There is NOTHING more important for “the Faith” than what our Bible is and isn’t!! 106 MIS-INFORMATION #34 BJU Professor praises Westcott, using his text (p.212) Gephart “As I read the material, I became troubled. [He is talking about somebody being attacked.] The professor and school were being accused of supporting heretics and of having departed from their historic Fundamentalist heritage.” Westcott is an apostate and a heretic. Dr. Sam Schnaiter uses his Hebrews as a BJU text. 107 MIS-INFORMATION #35 Are W/H & T.R. texts both “partly correct”? (p. 218) Gephart “God has preserved His Word. Some see His hand of providence in the dry sands of Egypt; others see it in the copying of medieval Greek Catholic monks. Both views are partly correct. The fact that humble and learned men of God are found on both sides of this issue is reason for pause in our dogmatism.” W/H is NOT “partly correct”! 108 BOB JONES University GREENVILLE · SOUTH CAROLINA 29614-00111 · 864-242-5100 · ADMISSIONS 1-800-BJ-AND-ME EXECUTIVE OFFICES FAX 864-233-9829

March 28, 2000 Dr. D. A. Waite 900 Park Avenue Collingswood, NJ 08108-3235

Dear Dr. Waite: Your conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville last week was a blatant attack upon BJU, an insult to this institution that your children attended. 109 In addition to that, someone sent me a copy of your diatribe Fundamentalist Misinformation on Bible Versions dedicated to "all the graduates of Bob Jones University who, though they were indoctrinated in the BJU Greek department to accept as genuine the Westcott and Hort kind of text, have forsaken such a text as corrupt and heretical and . . . have now accepted as genuine the Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible. . . ." This is not only a slap on the face of Bob Jones University, it is also a blatant misrepresentation of what our students were taught here. They're taught no disrespect for the Textus Receptus and certainly not for the KJV. The KJV is all we preach and teach from here. It would be utter stupidity for our Bible department to demean the Textus Receptus while holding in respect the translation from which it was made. 110 Dr. Waite, why are you so mean-spirited? Why do you vilify your brothers in Christ who believe the Bible just as fervently and defend it just as militantly as you do. You're creating division in the body of Christ that is unwarranted and hurtful. We know that the Lord hates those who sow discord among the brethren (Proverbs 6:16- 19). I beg you to desist. You are not hurting the University, but you are hurting the good name of Christ, a name that I believe you love as much as we do. My plea does not suggest that you should stop believing anything you believe about the text, but that you should desist in maligning and misrepresenting those who love the Bible as much as you do, but who don't see these things exactly as you do. Very truly yours, Bob Jones III 111 President